Council narrowly approves variance allowing beer and wine at 989 Winterberry Drive

The City of Marco Island City Council on June 1 approved Resolution 26‑25, a variance to allow on‑site sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages at 989 Winterberry Drive, a property located within the 500‑foot separation zone from a house of worship. The motion to approve, made by Councillor Henry and seconded by Councillor Schwan, passed by a 4–3 roll call vote.

The request, filed as Variance Petition VP 26‑000020, sought an exception to section 4‑32.1 of the City of Marco Island Code of Ordinances, which restricts establishments that primarily sell alcohol from operating within 500 feet of certain sensitive uses, including houses of worship. Planner Josh Oymond briefed the council on the Planning Board’s review: the Planning Board recommended denying the variance (4–3) after hearing a private agreement the applicant provided between the owner and the nearby congregation.

Fred Kramer, representing the applicant, told the council the proposed cafe would be a small, family‑oriented operation where alcohol sales would be ancillary, not the primary business. Kramer and his team submitted a written agreement with the Jewish congregation that committed to certain operating restrictions during high‑holiday services and relied on proximity measures shown on the site plan. Kramer said the nearest building face is roughly 160 feet from the synagogue’s building face and argued the city’s 500‑foot rule was designed for bars and clustering of alcohol establishments, not a 48‑seat cafe.

Keith Alter, president of the Jewish congregation, spoke as an authorized representative and said the congregation did not oppose the limited, written accommodations Kramer offered — including restricted hours on key religious observances — but stressed it did not want to be “put in the middle” of broader precedent questions. Jason Bailey, who sits on the Planning Board, said he voted against the project at the Planning Board meeting because he objected to the process and raised concern that neighbors had been put in a difficult position.

Council debate focused on two issues: the practical effect of a cafe‑style beer/wine license versus a full restaurant/bar (staff noted a 120‑seat restaurant could be established by right) and the risk of creating an undesirable precedent that could later be invoked to justify other uses near houses of worship. Several council members said they respected the Planning Board’s deliberations but weighed the applicant’s commitments and the congregation’s limited opposition in favor of approval. Others argued the variance sought a 90% deviation from the underlying regulation and worried about future implications.

Before the final vote, two nearby residents spoke during rebuttal/public comment: John Martini urged strict adherence to codes, while Lynn Nathanson asked whether the council’s action would create a binding precedent; the city attorney clarified each variance request is decided on its own record. The motion to approve included the resolution language as modified to reflect the congregation’s requested edit to the resolution.

Outcome: Motion to approve Resolution 26‑25, Variance Petition VP 26‑000020, passed 4–3. The council instructed staff to incorporate the congregation’s requested language into the final resolution. The variance permits limited on‑site beer and wine sales for the subject cafe at 989 Winterberry Drive; the official effective date will be the resolution’s stated effective date after finalization.

What happens next: The council did not make additional code changes; future applications will be treated separately. Appeals or other administrative challenges would follow the city’s quasi‑judicial and appellate procedures if filed.